Presidential Arms of Office

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 13:39
 

xanderliptak;75913 wrote:

The difference between the US and presidential seal is in the crest, where one displays the glory in an arc formation, whilst the other in a circle.  Hardly a different coat of arms, just a different crest.  And even that is debatable, given the US arms describes the crest as a glory breaking through the clouds, which could be displayed in the same fashion as the President’s arc and be correct.


Not really. Eisenhower issued an executive order in which the arrangement of the crest is specifically laid out and is to be distinct from that of the Great Seal of the USA. In addition, in the arms of the President the chief was decidedly changed to blue celeste. In addition, no one has definitively identified the term "coat of arms" as referring to the shield only. It is often, especially in the context of a place like the USA where heraldry is often misunderstood, used to mean the entire armorial achievement. There are significant enough differences between the arms as devised for the President’s use and the arms of the USA to say they are distinct, not identical.


xanderliptak;75913 wrote:

Anyways, because of the duplication and repetition of design, it is clear that the seals are not meant to represent arms of office but merely artistic designs inspired by the US seal.


I couldn’t disagree more. Eisenhower’s executive order makes clear that the arms as depicted on the Seal of the President is intended to be the arms of the Presidency and, as such, distinct from the arms on the Great Seal and most definitely arms of the Office of the President.


xanderliptak;75913 wrote:

I would attribute this to the standardization of government emblems and logos the last few generations, which cause such endless repetition of only one specific design that it is natural for government officials to believe that an arc or circle of clouds would be sufficient enough to declare the arms completely new…


Actually, placing the clouds in a circle or in an arc does cause a sufficient difference. The description of the arms on the seal of the President specifies: "Behind and above the eagle a radiating glory Or, on which appears an arc of thirteen cloud puffs proper, and a constellation of thirteen mullets argent." Whereas on the Great Seal of the USA the glory is specifically depicted in a circle and the constellation of thirteen mullets is placed on a field azure which is not mentioned in the achievement of the President.

 

Simply put they are different because they were intended to be distinct from each other and because the arms on the Seal of the President is intended to be the coat of arms of the President.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 13:49
 

Joseph McMillan;75930 wrote:

It seems reasonable to me to think of the formulation "coat of arms of the President" as a short form of "coat of arms of the United States as used by the President." Certainly the emblazonment is distinctive (the VP’s is similar but not quite the same—different color of clouds and stars in the crest and fewer stars encircling the eagle; the VP’s shield also uses a darker blue than the President’s. But the bottom line is that if I can look at an emblazonment and know reliably "that is the coat of arms of [the United States as used by] the President," it seems to me that what I am seeing is the President’s arms of office.


I agree.

 

Funny, though, that in an American context for understandable reasons the emphasis is on the arms being of the country and not of the incumbent of the office which is, by its nature, transitory. The people are sovereign, not the office-holder. For example, what we all refer to as the coat of arms "of Canada" is really the royal arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. That is to say the emphasis is placed on the person (the sovereign) and by extension the whole country uses this as its coat of arms. The same could be said for the arms of the U.K. which are really the royal arms. If the monarchy were abolished tomorrow then England would use, "Argent a cross throughout Gules" as its arms.

 

In the American context we emphasize that the country has a coat of arms. From that perspective your formulation, "the coat of arms of [the United States as used by] the President" makes some sense.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 14:06
 

gselvester;75932 wrote:

In addition, in the arms of the President the chief was decidedly changed to blue celeste.


The text of the blazon as specified in the executive orders 9626, 10823, and 10860 still says azure. Attached to the orders were specifications for the flag which indicated that the shade was to be light blue, which is a permissible interpretation of azure. The orders not only specified the blazon but were a direction to the emblazoner (flagmaker) as to exact proportions and colors.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 15:30
 

gselvester;75932 wrote:

Not really. Eisenhower issued an executive order in which the arrangement of the crest is specifically laid out and is to be distinct from that of the Great Seal of the USA. In addition, in the arms of the President the chief was decidedly changed to blue celeste.


As Jay has already noted, the blazon says azure.  There has always been a great deal of variation in the shade of blue used not only in the "Presidential arms" but in official emblazonments of the national arms generally.  In the 1970s, the Department of State took advice on this matter from Sir Anthony Wagner, Garter King of Arms, who replied what we all know:  in heraldry, blue is blue and red is red—the exact shade is a matter of complete indifference.  Bleu celeste is a bastard tincture; we should obliterate it from our consciousness.  (The last part is me, not Wagner.)


Quote:

Actually, placing the clouds in a circle or in an arc does cause a sufficient difference. The description of the arms on the seal of the President specifies: "Behind and above the eagle a radiating glory Or, on which appears an arc of thirteen cloud puffs proper, and a constellation of thirteen mullets argent." Whereas on the Great Seal of the USA the glory is specifically depicted in a circle and the constellation of thirteen mullets is placed on a field azure which is not mentioned in the achievement of the President.


But the legal blazon of the national arms does not specify that the clouds be in a circle (or that they consist of 13 puffs).  That they happen to be so on the great seal is a matter of artistic preference.  The 1825 die of the great seal that was created for treaty use doesn’t have the clouds in a circle, for example:

 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Official/Seal1825.jpg

 

... nor do many other official depictions of "the arms of the United States" used since 1782.

 

In other words, with one exception we haven’t yet touched upon, an accurate emblazonment of the arms of the President is by definition also an acceptable emblazonment of the arms of the US, but not every emblazonment of the arms of the US would be an accurate emblazonment of the arms of the President.  In fact, the 1786 Trenchard engraving of the arms of the US—made nearly two years before the position of President even existed—is a perfect illustration of the point.

 

The one exception is that the Presidential arms are, by the terms of the blazon, surrounded by an annulet of 50 white stars.

 

(Editorial comment:  the idea of a constellation of mullets is farcical; Arthur DuBois, who I assume drafted the original blazon for Harry Truman, should have been ashamed of himself.  They’re stars, which is how they’re described seven words later in describing the ring of them around the eagle.)

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 17:40
 

Joseph McMillan;75937 wrote:

The one exception is that the Presidential arms are, by the terms of the blazon, surrounded by an annulet of 50 white stars.


...and that the arms of the President specifically call for the clouds to be in an arc which means the two are not interchangeable.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 19:08
 

My point is that the clouds on the national arms can be in an arc if the artist so chooses and often have been.  They do not have to be in a circle.  And that means that every emblazonment of the Presidential arms is a valid emblazonment of the national arms, although not vice versa.  The Indian peace medals distributed by President Washington in 1792 were officially described as having the arms of the United States on one side.  Here’s what the artist engraved:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Indian_Peace_Medal_1792_Reverse.jpg/449px-Indian_Peace_Medal_1792_Reverse.jpg

 

The government did not reject this as an incorrect emblazonment.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 20:21
 

The current arms of the President and description of those arms and the seal on which they’re depicted are contained in executive order #10860 of February 5, 1960 and effective July 4, 1960. Comparison with anything produced before that is irrelevant because it is only since 1960 that the distinction has been made. What has happened since then is what matters. Who cares that the government didn’t correct something in 1792 when the "arms of the President" from which they would be distinguished wouldn’t be made official in their present form for another 168 years?

Circle or arc wasn’t an issue before 1960. It is now.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2010 21:00
 

gselvester;75941 wrote:

The current arms of the President and description of those arms and the seal on which they’re depicted are contained in executive order #10860 of February 5, 1960 and effective July 4, 1960. Comparison with anything produced before that is irrelevant because it is only since 1960 that the distinction has been made. What has happened since then is what matters.


Well, Father, if you want to depart from heraldic orthodoxy so far as to say that a particular style of emblazonment—the one on the current great seal—precludes artists from depicting the blazon any other way, then I guess we have little common ground on this issue.  The blazon of the crest in the act of 1782 says:


Quote:

... a glory, or, breaking through a cloud, proper, and surrounding thirteen stars, forming a constellation, argent, on an azure field.


It’s the glory that must surround the stars, not the cloud.  Any emblazonment that shows the stars (on a blue ground) surrounded by a glory that breaks through a cloud is a valid emblazonment under the law.  No executive order can alter the meaning of a statute.


Quote:

Who cares that the government didn’t correct something in 1792 when the "arms of the President" from which they would be distinguished wouldn’t be made official in their present form for another 168 years?


The reason the government didn’t correct the depiction in 1792 is that there was nothing to correct.  The medal shows a heraldically correct emblazonment of the arms as defined by law.  It just happened to be different one than was shown on the great seal.


Quote:

Circle or arc wasn’t an issue before 1960. It is now.


Only with respect to the Presidential version.  It must have the cloud in an arc.  The national arms must simply have a cloud—of any shape at the artist’s discretion—with the glory breaking through it.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2010 21:20
 

gselvester;75941 wrote:

The current arms of the President and description of those arms and the seal on which they’re depicted are contained in executive order #10860 of February 5, 1960 and effective July 4, 1960. Comparison with anything produced before that is irrelevant because it is only since 1960 that the distinction has been made.


Actually, the blazon of the crest of the presidential arms as having 13 cloud puffs in an arc dates from at least Executive Order 9646 in 1945, and a very similar crest specifically showing 13 cloud puffs was presribed by Calvin Coolidge in Executive Order 2390.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/1916_US_Presidents_Flag_Exec_Order_2390.jpg

 

And observe the clouds in this design used by Rutherford Hates in 1877:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PresidentHayesInvitationCOA.png/492px-PresidentHayesInvitationCOA.png

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
17 April 2010 08:50
 

Joseph McMillan;75942 wrote:

Well, Father, if you want to depart from heraldic orthodoxy so far as to say that a particular style of emblazonment—the one on the current great seal—precludes artists from depicting the blazon any other way, then I guess we have little common ground on this issue.


I don’t give a hang what’s on the Great Seal. This thread is about the Presidential arms of office and those have a specific blazon that leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. The arms of the President are different than the arms on the Great Seal and particular to the President. That’s not a departure from heraldic "orthodoxy" (as if there even were such a thing) in any way.


Joseph McMillan;75942 wrote:

Only with respect to the Presidential version.

Which only happens to be what this thread is about in the first place, not that that should have any bearing on others making it about something else in the typical style of this forum.


Joseph McMillan;75942 wrote:

The national arms must simply have a cloud—of any shape at the artist’s discretion—with the glory breaking through it.

That’s merely interesting but has nothing to do with the fact that there is a design specific to the office of President making for arms of the office (the topic of this thread) which is different, albeit slightly, from the arms on the Great Seal.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
17 April 2010 09:03
 

gselvester;75933 wrote:

Funny, though, that in an American context for understandable reasons the emphasis is on the arms being of the country and not of the incumbent of the office which is, by its nature, transitory. The people are sovereign, not the office-holder. For example, what we all refer to as the coat of arms "of Canada" is really the royal arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. That is to say the emphasis is placed on the person (the sovereign) and by extension the whole country uses this as its coat of arms.


I’m not certain about how the following observation relates to your point, but the royal arms, whether of the UK or Canada, seem more arms of office than personal arms. They are the Queen’s arms for so long as she is queen. They do not pass to descendents, except perhaps to the heir apparent, by inheritence (rather differenced versions are specifically assigned).

 

Also, when arms of office are marshalled with personal arms, is it not only the shield element of the offical arms that is added to the personal arms? The various renditions of bishops’ arms to which we are treated include the processional cross and galero which relate to the bishop and not the diocese.

 

Thus, if a president were to marshall official with personal arms, I do not beleive that the eagle, glory or stars would be involved.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
17 April 2010 09:30
 

No one has suggested that an armigerous president marshal his personal arms with arms of office. So, I, too, don’t see how your observation relates to what we are talking about.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
17 April 2010 13:05
 

gselvester;75954 wrote:

No one has suggested that an armigerous president marshal his personal arms with arms of office. So, I, too, don’t see how your observation relates to what we are talking about.


The concept of marshalling of presidential and personal arms has in fact been discussed, not necessarily approvingly, since the beginning of this thread.

 

First Post:
gselvester;75899 wrote:

It is commonly accepted that armigerous President’s don’t make use of a coat of arms connected to their time in office as President. Furthermore, there is no "arms of office" for the President that could be marshaled to his own arms, etc.


Second Post:
Joseph McMillan;75900 wrote:

But I remain unconvinced that it would be either useful or appropriate to begin marshalling the shield of these arms (i.e., the shield of the arms of the United States) with the personal arms of a President for the time being.


Third Post:
gselvester;75902 wrote:

No one is suggesting it would be either useful or appropriate. In fact, I suggested just the opposite stating that it isn’t done.


Later:
Donnchadh;75920 wrote:

i’m still torn on this issue. on one hand i like the idea of a president marshaling his personal arms with a presidential one…speaking from a purely heraldic POV. however, speaking from a republican (small r intentional) POV i don’t want any president to have more power, or symbols of power than they actually do. i lean towards the it’s a bad idea party overall i think.


My observation was not intended to indicate approval or disapproval of marshalling presidential and personal arms, just that if it were done, a case can be made that only a portion of the presidential arms (the shield) would be involved.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
17 April 2010 14:04
 

I have always personally liked how the Great Seal was slightly different from the seal of the President, and would have liked to see the seal of the Congress and the Supreme Court also take up the arched glory to distinguish their own seals from the Great Seal.  In this aspect, the arched glory would represent a third of the full circle displayed upon the Great Seal, each branch of government coming together in their approval for the completed circle.  The writing about the edge would be enough to distinguish each seal from the other.

I also then would like to see the seals of the Justice and State Departments changed, which show representations of the Great Seal, as they represent more the President’s affairs rather than the whole government.  There is Senate approval to the positions, but not from the Congress as a whole, nor from the Supreme Court, so it is odd they should be allowed the use of the government’s emblem.

 

The arched glory would be, though a possible rendition for the Great Seal, a specific representation for a specific intention.

 

I would think for the Presidents, that, if anything, it should be left to personal augmentation to reference their high office.  Like how some papal families have augmented their arms in reference to a family members election to the Papacy.

 
Hugh Brady
 
Avatar
 
 
Hugh Brady
Total Posts:  989
Joined  16-08-2005
 
 
 
17 April 2010 17:44
 

gselvester;75933 wrote:

If the monarchy were abolished tomorrow then England would use, "Argent a cross throughout Gules" as its arms.

In the American context we emphasize that the country has a coat of arms. From that perspective your formulation, "the coat of arms of [the United States as used by] the President" makes some sense.


The Royal Arms are the arms of practically each constituent country of the U.K. The arms are blazoned 1 & 4, England, 2, Scotland, 3, Ireland. Thus, if the monarchy were abolished tomorrow, the arms of England would still be England until Parliament or other competent authority changed them.

 

Altho Cromwell used St. George’s and St. Andrew’s Cross in the Arms of the Commonwealth, he did so because the Council of State, the competent authority, ordered it done.

 

Even if the Executive Order refers to the entire achievement used by the President as the "Coat of Arms of the President" does not necessarily make it so. As law professors and economists like to say, assume for a moment that litigation has been brought in court for a judgment asking the court to declare what the President’s coat of arms is. The court would hear expert testimony, all of whom, including the government’s witness (the Director of the Institute of Heraldry), agree that the term "coat of arms" means only the shield and that what the term really meant, in the context of the order, is "achievement of arms." Judgment issues accordingly and affirms what we know is heraldic common-sense: that the "coat of arms of the President" is the national arms. They are not arms of office.

 

Contra the shield displayed in the seal of the United States Senate. Here, the chief has thirteen stars (I’m with Joe on that one) and one could argue that the Senate indeed has a coat of arms that is not the national arms. They still wouldn’t be arms of office.